Reported / Citable
Background
The Las Flores Pipelines are crude-oil transport lines running through the Santa Barbara County coastal zone. They operated from 1990 until the 2015 Refugio Beach oil spill — one of the largest coastal spills in California history — when they were shut down. In 2024, Sable Offshore Corp. acquired the pipelines and began repair and maintenance work on 121 anomaly sites within the coastal zone and unincorporated county area.
The California Coastal Commission took the position that this work constituted “development” under the Coastal Act requiring a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Santa Barbara County disagreed: it told Sable in February 2025 that the pipeline repair work was already authorized under existing permits, and it returned Sable’s CDP applications without action. The Commission then issued a cease-and-desist order under Public Resources Code section 30810 — which authorizes Commission enforcement when a local government “declines to act” regarding a potential Coastal Act violation — and later obtained a preliminary injunction from the trial court halting the work.
Sable appealed, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue the order because the County had already “acted” by determining no new permits were required. The Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Appellate District held that the County’s response — informing Sable that no permits were needed and returning its applications — constituted “declin[ing] to act” under Public Resources Code section 30810(a)(2), not an affirmative act that would foreclose the Commission’s independent enforcement authority.
The court reasoned that treating the County’s letter as “taking action” would lead to an absurd result: any county could immunize a developer from Commission enforcement simply by issuing a letter saying no permit is needed. Such a reading would gut the Commission’s backstop role under the Coastal Act. The statute distinguishes between a local government declining to act and a local government taking enforcement action; communicating that no permits are required is an instance of the former, not the latter.
The court also rejected Sable’s argument that the appeal was moot because the trial court had separately upheld the underlying cease-and-desist order on the merits — the preliminary injunction was still in effect, and the appellate court could still grant relief by dissolving it. On that jurisdictional point, the panel found the appeal alive and affirmed the injunction.
Key Takeaways
- A county’s determination that a development project requires no new permits is a “declination to act” for purposes of Public Resources Code section 30810(a)(2), not an affirmative enforcement action that displaces the Commission’s authority.
- Once the Commission has sought county enforcement and the county has declined, the Commission can issue its own cease-and-desist order directly against the developer — including for work the county considers already permitted.
- The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed” to protect coastal resources; courts will not adopt readings that allow local governments to insulate developers from state enforcement.
- Coastal zone projects previously permitted under a local coastal program may still require new CDPs when the scope of work expands, a project is revived after shutdown, or the underlying conditions of prior permits have changed.
- Developers conducting maintenance or repair work in the coastal zone — particularly on legacy infrastructure shut down for environmental events — should confirm with both the county and the Commission whether new CDP authorization is needed before beginning work.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the enforcement relationship between California’s Coastal Commission and local governments in a way that significantly strengthens the Commission’s hand. If a county opts out of enforcement — even by affirmatively ruling that no permits are required — the Commission retains authority to step in. For businesses operating pipeline, utility, or other infrastructure in the California coastal zone, this means that local sign-off is not a safe harbor against Commission enforcement. The Commission’s jurisdiction is not derivative of local action; it is independent and can be triggered any time a local agency fails to take timely enforcement action.
The case also has broad practical relevance for any energy or infrastructure developer in California working to restart or repair coastal facilities that have been dormant. The 2015 Refugio Beach spill and subsequent shutdown of the Las Flores Pipelines illustrates that prior permits do not automatically authorize resumption of operations after a prolonged hiatus — particularly where the scope of repair work is extensive. Developers should plan for CDP review as part of any major rehabilitation effort in the coastal zone.